Skip to main content
Glama
Achlesha

sendhustle-mcp

by Achlesha
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_segment

Create a contact segment for a sending domain, using filters like status, email, or properties to group contacts. Segments are unique per domain.

Instructions

Create a segment on a sending domain (POST /segments, domain-first). Segment names are unique WITHIN a domain but reusable across domains. filter supports { status, email_contains, property_filters }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSegment name.
domainYesThe sending domain this resource belongs to (domain-first model), e.g. 'yourdomain.com' — one of your domains.
filterNoe.g. { status: 'subscribed', email_contains: '@acme.com', property_filters: [{ key, operator: 'eq'|'contains'|'exists', value? }] }.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose domain scoping, name uniqueness per domain, and filter capabilities. However it omits what happens on duplicate names, required permissions, and what a successful response looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences front-load the core purpose and route, then add naming semantics and filter support. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers domain model, name uniqueness, and filter, but lacks response/error behavior and prerequisites around domain ownership/verification. It is adequate, not complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds the important cross-domain name uniqueness constraint and summarizes the filter keys. This is extra meaning beyond the schema, though the filter info largely duplicates the schema's example.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names the exact operation (Create), resource (segment), scope (sending domain), and HTTP route (POST /segments). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling update/get/list/delete segment tools without requiring the agent to open schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternatives, but the create verb plus the uniqueness/domain-first context makes usage inferable. It does not tell the agent what to do if the segment already exists or when to prefer update_segment.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools